Reactions to Paterno due process column are amazingly supportive, 10-to-1

Despite what seems like an almost universal frenzy to vilify Joe Paterno,… (MICHAEL KUBEL, THE MORNING…)

July 19, 2012|Paul Carpenter

The anticipated tsunami of righteous rage never hit the shore. Instead, there was a flood of support for a decidedly divergent viewpoint, on Sunday, holding that Joe Paterno never received the due process he should have had before being vilified.

There was due process for Jerry Sandusky, a former assistant football coach at Penn State University, and it resulted in dozens of guilty verdicts involving the sexual abuse of young boys.

There was none for Paterno, the iconic head coach, whose final months were turned into hell even though he had nothing to do with the crimes — and attacks against him only intensified after he died in January and attackers were sure he could not defend himself.

This week, I heard from hundreds of readers responding to Sunday's column, and I'm amazed that those who support me on this issue outnumbered those who don't by a ratio of more than 10-to-1.

I have been at The Morning Call since 1986 and in all that time I have never had such a lopsided positive response to something I wrote, but I have had bigger negative responses (columns that were unkind to tattoo freaks, pit bull owners, etc.).

"Thank you for the first honest article I've read about the Penn State tragedy," wrote Gary Onuschak of Bethlehem.

"I applaud your courage to write this article, [informing readers] that due process has not been served," wrote Todd Armen, a physician in Columbus, Ohio.

"Finally, someone has made thoughtful reflection on the very sad situation," said a letter from Sara Thomas of Allentown.

"I am absolutely thrilled that there still are people there in the commonwealth who are trying to inject some sanity and some actual investigative journalism into this process," said Penn State alumnus Doug Robb, in a telephone call from Austin, Texas.

Christopher Greene of the Lehigh Valley said, "The portrayal in the general media would make you believe Joe was the one raping little boys. … Thank you for your deliberate and thoughtful commentary."

"I am glad that you have enough courage to buck the super-hyped media," said a letter from Anna Morris of Carterville, Ill.

There also were supportive comments from Lehigh Valley notables like John Brinson of the 24-7 Fitness Clubs, Lehigh County Commissioner Mike Schware and Lehigh County Judge James Anthony.

"In my experience, the politicians, bureaucrats and officials who make hay when situations like this arise are generally cowards who will only speak up if they believe the pack is with them," Anthony wrote. "Although what Joe Paterno did and did not do deserves scrutiny, [he] and his legacy deserve to be treated fairly."

And so it went — stacks and stacks of calls and letters warmly praising Sunday's column, although there were others, far fewer in number, with contrary views.

"You, sir, are even more of a moron than I originally thought. And sanctimonious at that," wrote Susan Witt, who did not say where she's from.

Marcie Miller, who also did not give an address, said, "Your view sounds like you did not read the report," referring to a report by former FBI chief Louis Freeh, upon which Sunday's column was mainly based. (I did, in fact, read the entire Freeh Report before writing Sunday's column.)

Freeh, by the way, was paid $6.5 million by Penn State's board of trustees, which includes Gov. Tom Corbett, to do the report. It contained mild criticism of the board, successfully diverting the focus of the scandal to Paterno and Penn State President Graham Spanier, a harsh critic of Corbett.

That referred to a column I wrote last September, favorably comparing Paterno's record of maintaining academic excellence to that of T. Boone Pickens, the leading benefactor for OSU, where a football player like Dexter Manley could finish four years of college without learning to read or write.

Since November, the OSU faithful have sent me dozens of letters expressing unrestrained glee over the Paterno story and demanding that I apologize for saying nasty things about Pickens.

Fat chance.

Several other readers brought up a point I did not cover in Sunday's column. In November — when I questioned the credibility of Mike McQueary, who claimed he gave Paterno details after seeing Sandusky sexually assault a boy — the condemnations aimed at me were furious.

Now, some readers noted that in Sandusky's trial, he was convicted of dozens of crimes, but on a charge based on McQueary's testimony, the jury found him not guilty. (The other incident supposedly linked to a Paterno cover-up was in 1998. Sandusky was not prosecuted for that.)

So the 1998 case and the McQueary case vanished into thin air, with little else of substance that reflects on Paterno, but the vilifications based on them continue.

My favorite email letter came from The Morning Call's former hard-nosed editor, Larry Hymans, who retired in 1995 and now lives in Arizona. "I'm happy to see you're still on top of your game, kicking the juice out of foes of freedom and justice for all," he began, "Of all the columns I've read and talk shows I've suffered through, you stand head and shoulders above all of them on the Paterno debacle."

Hymans said crucial issues like due process have been ignored by most journalists in the Paterno story — "tragically, another example of the wasteland our wonderful profession has become."